Re: [PATCH] tools/memory-model: Provide extra ordering for unlock+lock pair on the same CPU

[Alan Stern]

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 11:17:53AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 11:20:33AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 09:08:23PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > > A recent discussion[1] shows that we are in favor of strengthening the
> > > ordering of unlock + lock on the same CPU: a unlock and a po-after lock
> > > should provide the so-called RCtso ordering, that is a memory access S
> > > po-before the unlock should be ordered against a memory access R
> > > po-after the lock, unless S is a store and R is a load.
> > > 
> > > The strengthening meets programmers' expection that "sequence of two
> > > locked regions to be ordered wrt each other" (from Linus), and can
> > > reduce the mental burden when using locks. Therefore add it in LKMM.
> > > 
> > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210909185937.GA12379@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > 
> > > Co-developed-by: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Alan,
> > > 
> > > I added the "Co-developed-by" and "Signed-off-by" tags since most of the
> > > work is done by you. Feel free to let me know if you want to change
> > > anything.
> > 
> > It looks good to me.  However, do we really want to add these litmus
> > tests to the kernel source, or would it be better to keep them with
> > the thousands of other tests in Paul's archives?
> 
> Either way works for me.  But if they are referred to from within the
> kernel, it is best to have them in the kernel source.  Which might be seen
> as a reason to minimize referring to litmus tests from the kernel.  ;-)

In this case the litmus tests are not referred to within the kernel 
source.

Alan